Re: [Ila] [DMM] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

["Bogineni, Kalyani" <[e-mail]>]

Marco:

I think you are talking about 2 features: one for mobility that needs the database; another for non-mobility state transfer
between user plane nodes (not necessarily mobility nodes).

Kalyani

From: ila [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marco Liebsch
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 3:40 AM
To: Bogineni, Kalyani <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; dmm <[e-mail]>; Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ila] [DMM] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

Kalyani, even with Option 1 I see much impact on the control plane as it implies that SMF offers/uses service to/from the Mapping DB utilizing the service-based interfaces.
My comment was more about whether we need or should introduce a new building block into the control plane at all.

marco


From: Bogineni, Kalyani [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2018 03:56
To: Marco Liebsch
Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Dino Farinacci; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; dmm
Subject: RE: [Ila] [DMM] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt


Marco:

Response Inline

From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 5:10 PM
To: Bogineni, Kalyani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; dmm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Ila] [DMM] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

Hi Kalyani,

my current take is to keep the data plane independent of a specific mapping base. Even if it comes with an extended control plane per the two options that you draw, I personally don't think that SMF and UPF/Data Plane should communicate through the service-based architecture.
[KB] Does this mean you prefer option 1 because option 2 shows APIs from both UPFs and Mapping DB to the services based interfaces?


marco


On 6. Feb 2018, at 22:30, Bogineni, Kalyani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Marco, Sri:



Here is the services based 5G architecture.



<image001.png>



SMF is a control plane entity and talks to the User plane functions (UPF) through N4 interface as specified in 3GPP TS 29.244.



Here are two variants:



Option 1: Mapping DB talks to the UPFs using a variant of N4 possibly.



<image002.png>



Option 2: Here there is no direct interface between Mapping Db and UPFs. UPFs also support APIs like the control plane functions.



<image003.png>



The architecture is extensible and additional control plane or user plane functions can be added.



Is this what you had in mind?



Kalyani



-----Original Message-----
From: ila [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marco Liebsch
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 12:09 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; dmm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Ila] [DMM] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt



It could be a nice option to keep the data plane specific control (the mapping DB you refer to) in the user plane and take a common N4 to update the mapping DB in case of mobility. But I think that clashes with the clear data plane / control plane separation in nextgen. And: there may be data plane solutions which don't come with a control plane / mapping system. For these the N4 needs to disseminate complete forwarding states (an more, e.g. for chargeable event monitoring, device dormancy support etc.) to all relevant data plane nodes, means the ones that hold a state for the mobile.



Btw, in terms of compatibility with nextgen, so far N4 is terminated only in few types of core data plane nodes with a dedicated role. We may investigate options to push forwarding and further policies from the (nextgen) control plane to other data plane nodes which don't terminate N4.



marco



-----Original Message-----

From: dmm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)

Sent: Dienstag, 6. Februar 2018 04:07

To: Dino Farinacci

Cc: dmm; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt



> The UPF sends IP packets. The UPF is part of the NGC core, right? So

>the packets from the UPF get to a map-resolver and map-server via IP.

>It's pretty simple. At least it should be.



Sure, that LISP control plane packet is an IP packet. But, every message that is going between CP and UP will be named and numbered in 3GPP specs, and so said in my first mail that its probably a new interface specific to LISP.



With any of the IETF protocols, PMIPv6/LISP/ILA, it can be argued that these are IP packets. But, we should note that there is interworking needed with the 3GPP authentication infrastructure, and the protocol specific control plane. Note that these protocols are not doing MN identity establishment. May be I could be wrong here on the assumptions you have around LISP MN capabilities, but to me MN is a standard 3GPP UE with no special capabilities such as MIPv6/LISP MN stack.







Sri













On 2/5/18, 6:52 PM, "Dino Farinacci" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



>> Sure, but I assume the mapping table/DB is some where else in some

>>central  location and not on the UPF?

>

>True.

>

>> The question is how does the UPF fetch that entry and if the

>>interface for  that query is built on some 3GPP interface, or its

>>internal to LISP with  no bearing on the access technology.

>

>The UPF sends IP packets. The UPF is part of the NGC core, right? So

>the packets from the UPF get to a map-resolver and map-server via IP.

>It's pretty simple. At least it should be.

>

>Dino

>

>>

>> Sri

>>

>>

>>

>> On 2/5/18, 6:42 PM, "Dino Farinacci" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

>>

>>> I don't know what you mean. If you put the xTR function on an UPF,

>>> then by LISP spec definition, Map-Request, Map-Reply, and

>>> Map-Register functionality is part of the UPF.

>>>

>>> Dino

>>>

>>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)

>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> I suspect there might be a need for a new interface.

>>>>

>>>> Assuming the LISP mapping system stays in the control plane, next

>>>>to  SMF/AMF, and the xTR functions on the UPF, there needs to be

>>>>probably a  new interface along the lines of the N4, for managing

>>>>the LISP MAP  operations (Reg/Req/Reply/Notify..).  But, off course

>>>>if the mapping  system stays in the user-plane, may be there is just

>>>>interworking with  the  3GPP authentication interfaces.

>>>>

>>>> Sri

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> On 2/5/18, 5:15 PM, "Bogineni, Kalyani"

>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Dino:

>>>>>

>>>>> Please look at 3GPP TS 23.501 to understand the architecture of NGC.

>>>>>We

>>>>> tried to explain that in the White paper.

>>>>> TS 23.502 has the procedures for the NGC. TS 23.503 specifies the

>>>>>policy  and charging control framework for NGC.

>>>>> CT4 has a technical report on protocol aspects for NGC in TR 29.891.

>>>>>

>>>>> Your draft needs to describe how it fits in the 5G architecture,

>>>>>right  now it only addresses 4G.

>>>>>

>>>>> Kalyani

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> -----Original Message-----

>>>>> From: ila [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dino

>>>>>Farinacci

>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 7:32 PM

>>>>> To: Bogineni, Kalyani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

>>>>> Cc: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; dmm

>>>>><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;  Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

>>>>> Subject: Re: [Ila] [E] Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for

>>>>>draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Bogineni, Kalyani

>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Dino:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Can you add a section to show how this proposal would fit in 5G

>>>>>> architecture?

>>>>>

>>>>> Can you be more specific in what you¹d like to see in the new

>>>>>section?

>>>>>

>>>>> There are references throughout the draft where you see eNodeB and

>>>>>pGW  that UPF functionality could be at the same network mode

>>>>>location.

>>>>>

>>>>> Dino

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> ila mailing list

>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_m

>>>>>ail

>>>>>ma

>>>>> n_

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>listinfo_ila&d=DwIGaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ

>>>>>&r=

>>>>>Id

>>>>> iS

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>ODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=zf1K

>>>>>fRu

>>>>>4n

>>>>> UF

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>sUT8IJVExPygA_iAC-h4BErkY_CE2ugM&s=oLQOKLOAxuYtjVD_qWMbiQjkmP9acy6A

>>>>>u0X

>>>>>6l

>>>>> pS

>>>>> iBvg&e=

>>>>

>>>

>>

>



_______________________________________________

dmm mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_dmm&d=DwIFAw&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=lWGVj8Jd11JyGVLcPLOSIxTZ-YHY3VbtfD1mi2uqhOY&s=-EIvAEYOQusoChy_iwtR4nMkaEqRKBTKTJ8GDjADuCk&e=



_______________________________________________

ila mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ila&d=DwIFAw&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=lWGVj8Jd11JyGVLcPLOSIxTZ-YHY3VbtfD1mi2uqhOY&s=cwX6UkOqq2vREiCvsQ7GPBXgKsinbkDmmckbpGwi73o&e=